Church of Rome at the Bar of H: [Library Binding]

William Webster (Author)

Product Details

• Library Binding: 256 pages
• Publisher: Banner of Truth (July 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0851516734
• ISBN-13: 978-0851516738
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.5 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #4,187,794 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

33 of 41 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Some good arguments, some bad, November 21, 2003

By 

Seth Aaron Lowry (Olean, NY United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Church of Rome at the Bar of H: (Library Binding)

William Webster has developed his little apologetics niche by arguing against the claims made by the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, in this book he offers some really good arguments along with some really terrible ones. First the positive aspects of the book. Webster does a great job of dealing with the more Protestant oriented issues like justification, faith, and the Scriptures. I believe Webster argues convincingly that the deutero-cannonicals were not considered authoritative Scripture by the Church fathers. Nevertheless, he fails to take into consideration the fact that many of the fathers meant different things when they referred to the canon as opposed to Scripture. Just because the Fathers didn't regard the deuteros as part of the Christian canon, or books read during the liturgical season, doesn't mean they didn' regard them as Scripture. In fact, Athanasius lists the books of the canon as the 66 found in Protestant bibles minus Esther, but elsewhere in his writings he repeatedly refers to many of the apocryphal books as Scripture. Either he contradicted himself on many occasions or he had two divergent notions as to what the canon was and what was Scripture.

When it comes to other issues like justification Webster is correct in his assessments of the the different ideas held by Protestants and Catholics, but he doesn't do enough to convince that his views are correct. Examining the Marian doctrines, Webster illustrates dogmas such as the assumption and immaculate conception weren't held by the Church Fathers. Also, his work on the supposed evolution of the papacy is also strong, but to understand that issue one should read his longer work, The Matthew 16 Controversey, for a fuller and more thorough line of argumentation. I believe that these sections were the stronger sections of the book, and the ones that were more convincing and persuasive in their argumentation.

I think where Webster really goes off track is when he deals with issues like the Eucharist and the Sacraments. First, I don't know what qualifications Webster used to determine that Justin Martyr believed in consubstantiation while Ignatius of Antioch believed in transubstantiation. There is one time in Justin's Apology where he specifically says the bread and wine in the Eucharist is transmuted into the body and blood of Christ. Hardly, Lutheran type consubstantiation language to me. Also, to say that the Didache and Eusebius taught that the bread and wine were merely symbols is hard to swallow. First, Eusebius refers elsewhere in his writings to the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, so either he contradicts himself or means something different by the word symbol; In fact, Webster never examines the argument that the Greek word for symbol does not mean symbol in the way English speaking people understand it. In the Greek the word had a much stronger connotation and meaning, which can be evinced by the fact that many Fathers stated that Jesus Christ was the true symbol of God. They weren't saying that he just signified God, but that he was truly and actually God in the flesh. Finally, saying Augustine believed in a spiritual presense only does not take into his many statements where he says that the bread and the cup are truly Christ's body and blood. What I thought was really appalling was Webster's treatment of baptism. After stating that Fathers were unanimously agreed that baptism was efficacious for regeneration, spiritual life, and the remission of sins, Webster proceeds to state they were all wrong and then argues for a Zwinglian interpretation of baptism. I don't know about you, but if I have to choose between the unanimous opinion of the Fathers who much closer to the time of the Apostles, or the private opinions of one man writing in the 16th century, I will side with the Fathers. Overall, an interesting read, but I think Webster would be better served if he took each subject individually and wrote a more detailed examination of each topic.

10 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Comparing Roman dogma to the testimony of the early Church, August 23, 1998

By 

Taylor Marshall ([e-mail]) (College Station, Texas) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Church of Rome at the Bar of H: (Library Binding)

This volume exposes that much of the teaching of the Roman 'Catholic' teaching is not complementary to the thinking of the church fathers and that in fact much of it contradicts their doctrine. I admire William Webster for taking a humble and loving approach to this work. It is not an offensive polemic like so many works against Roman Catholicism. He simply states the facts and documents them. He includes 7 appendices that are direct quotations from Roman documents: quotes from church fathers, the Council of Trent, Vatican I and II and various other declarations. These alone are worth the price of the book. The topics that Webster examines are, the Apocrypha, the relation of Scripture to tradition, the papacy, Marian dogma, the Sacramenatal System, the Eucharist, and faith and justification. He challenges Rome's claim's "not by debating texts of Scripture but by a straight appeal to the very area where the Church of Rome believes her case is strongest, the facts of history". I would suggest this book for anyone who is examining Roman 'Catholicism'. Polite and informative.

26 of 42 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A must for those who want to read church history, June 30, 1999

By 

Lee Jensen "riolion" (Rio Rancho, New Mexico USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Church of Rome at the Bar of H: (Library Binding)

A definite 5-star rating book of prime importance. Webster focuses on major issues and in a non-polemical way, raises questions about doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that current Catholics claim as part of a changeless creed, but which were not held by predecessors.

This book is becoming more and more popular in challenging the alleged authority and supremacy of the Roman Church. Webster certainly puts the Church of Rome to the Bar of History and finds it lacking in that court. The book is well organized, fully documenting the claims of the Roman Church as derived from official source documents and depicting the shortcomings of those claims from both historical sources and Scriptural interpretations as given by the early church fathers. Webster was well educated in the Catholic Church, attended parochial schools until a teenagers, and then a Benedictine monastery throughout high school years. He thoroughly understands the Roman Catholic faith and its doctrines.

Both the Councils of Trent and Vatican I contented "that the Roman Catholic Church alone has the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. And secondly, that no one, the Church included, is to hold an interpretation of Scripture which is contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Webster does an excellent job in not only challenging Rome's authority in interpretating Scriptures but also proves that "the Church cannot even claim unanimous consent from the early Fathers onwards for it current teaching on the nature of tradition itself, much less for a comprehensive body of doctrine with the exception of the broad biblical doctrines such as the existence of one God; the inspiration of Scripture; the recognition of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; and baptism." -p. 31.

Challenged also is the Roman Church belief in 'development of doctrine' or 'unfolding of doctrinal truth'. This is a theory that the apostles left truth in germ form in Scriptures which took centuries to develop fully and was revealed to the Church as the need arose. "If any doctrine is claimed as a true development it must be consistent with the truth of Scripture (its alleged source) and should be supported by the testimony of the Church to the manner in which it has been increasingly understood in the course of history." -p. 19. Webster states that no one denies that there can be a development in understanding the deep truths of Scripture over time (such as the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual natures of Christ), "but the theory now under consideration cannot legitimize Roman Catholic tradition for its fails two very important tests - the test of Scripture and the test of history." Of importance to Webster is to examine what interpretation of Scripture was held by the early church fathers.

I would recommend this book to anyone that needs to do research on the historical claims of the Roman Church and wants to be able to defend his views against those that makes claims that cannot be supported by historical documents.